Date: 1/04/2026 16:00:11
From: Neophyte
ID: 2375360
Subject: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

March 31, 2026 (Tuesday)

At 4:11 this morning, President Donald J. Trump’s social media account posted: “All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, to to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT”

While this morning, Trump appeared to wash his hands of his Iran war, there was an undertone of panic in his post, especially coming as it did just before an exclusive story by Alexander Ward and Meridith McGraw in the Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump has “told aides he is willing to end the military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed.”

Economist Paul Krugman noted this evening that this is essentially an admission of defeat, and Suzanne Maloney, vice president of the Brookings Institution think tank and an expert on Iran, called Trump’s suggestion that he is willing to leave the strait closed “unbelievably irresponsible.” Having started a war, she said, the U.S. and Israel cannot walk away from the outcome. “Energy markets are inherently global, and there is no possibility of insulating the U.S. from the economic damage that is already occurring and will become exponentially worse if the closure of the strait continues,” she told the Wall Street Journal reporters.

Nonetheless, the idea the Iran War would end soon was a signal investors wanted to see. On the strength of the hope for a short war, the stock market posted its biggest one-day gain in ten months.

Meanwhile, another aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush, left its home port, Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, today to head in the direction of the Middle East, although it is not clear if it will support Operation Epic Fury. According to Alison Bath of Stars and Stripes, the carrier will pick up other elements of the carrier group, including the destroyers USS Ross, USS Donald Cook, and USS Mason, as it crosses the Atlantic. The George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group also includes several aircraft squadrons and detachments that make up the 70 or more aircraft in Carrier Air Wing 7, along with more than 5,000 sailors and military personnel.

Nearly 3,500 sailors and Marines from the Tripoli Amphibious Ready Group arrived in the region on Saturday.

Yesterday, host Laura Ingraham of the Fox News Channel wondered, “as the president fully briefed about the risks of all of this from the beginning? And was he then able to take it all in and understand the complexity of this? How complex it could actually get, and further possibilities of casualties or other damage—the difficulty of dealing with these people? Or was he told this would be relatively quick, in and out?”

Nick Hilden of AlterNet reported that MAGA leader Alex Jones speculated today that ill-health is contributing to Trump’s poor decisions on Iran. “Trump’s run off the edge of a cliff, and I don’t think he’s coming back from it,” Jones said. He urged MAGA to move on without Trump. “We cut bait on Trump and we mobilize against the Democrats,” he said. “Trump is just a minor figure.”

Hunter Walker of Talking Points Memo picked up the story of another MAGA figure distancing himself from Trump. When he ran for governor in 2024, former North Carolina lieutenant governor Mark Robinson flat out denied stories about his participation in pornography forums and social media chats where he attacked Jewish, Black, gay, and transgender people as well as flirting with Holocaust denial and calling himself a “black NAZI!” He even sued CNN for $50 million for defamation, calling their story about him “a high-tech lynching” before dropping the suit after losing the election.

Walker noted that Robinson recently admitted on a podcast that he was lying all along. He “had to ignore the truth at that moment,” he said, because he was shielding Trump. “I certainly don’t want to be the person that costs the president of the United States the election,” he said. “Didn’t want to cost anyone else their election.” Asked if he would do it again, he answered: “I’d make the exact same decision. I’d fight in the exact same way.”

After Saturday’s No Kings rallies around the country and the world, and after new polls showing his job approval ratings have dropped to new lows, Trump this afternoon signed an executive order attacking mail-in voting. Although both Democratic and Republican election officials insist mail-in voting is secure and reliable, Trump claims it permits Democrats to cheat.
Ironically, earlier this month the story broke of a right-wing activist in Wisconsin who ordered ballots in other people’s names to prove that mail-in voting enabled voter fraud. Last week Harry Wait was convicted of one felony count of identity theft and two misdemeanor counts of election fraud, suggesting mail-in voting is not as insecure as he thought.

Nonetheless, Trump is ordering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work with the Social Security Administration to create a list of verified U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote in each state. The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to voters on the list, and to mark each ballot with its own unique barcode. It threatens any states refusing to cooperate with the order with a loss of federal funding and directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate anyone wrongfully distributing mail-in ballots. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council notes that “there is no such thing as a federal list of citizens. It does not exist.”

“This is unconstitutional on its face,” election law expert David Becker told Yunior Rivas of Democracy Docket. “The Constitution clearly gives the president no power over elections.” The Senate Rules Committee oversees federal involvement in elections, and its top Democrat, Alex Padilla (D-CA), called the order a “blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power,” adding that Trump has “no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting.” Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, said that the order is “illegal, dangerous and subversive” and that “Donald Trump fears the American people and is willing to violate the Constitution to stop them from voting.”

“See you in court,” posted Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “You will lose.”

Another of Trump’s executive orders was in court today, when Judge Randolph Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that much of Trump’s order stripping NPR and PBS of funds was unconstitutional. As Brian Stelter of CNN reported, Moss quoted a Supreme Court ruling when he wrote: “The First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others.” Republicans in Congress have since voted to cut federal funding from NPR and PBS, but the decision is a victory for the First Amendment.

Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also stymied Trump today when he ruled that Trump cannot proceed with his plans for a giant ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing of the White House without approval from Congress. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued Trump and a number of federal agencies to stop construction of the ballroom, noting that Trump skipped reviews and approvals that were required by law.

The decision by Leon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, begins: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” It goes on to say that “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims…to construct his East Wing ballroom project and do it with private funds,” and points out that Trump appears to be relying for authority on a law permitting him “to conduct ordinary maintenance and repair of the White House.” Leon also noted that the White House has offered vague and shifting information about who is actually in charge of the project and that the public has an interest in the appearance of the White House. Leon said “the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.”

The Department of Justice has already appealed.

Trump exploded at the judge’s decision, posting on social media: “The National Trust for Historic Preservation sues me for a Ballroom that is under budget, ahead of schedule, being built at no cost to the Taxpayer, and will be the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World. I then get sued by them over the renovation of the dilapidated and structurally unsound former Kennedy Center, now, The Trump Kennedy Center (A show of Bipartisan Unity, a Republican and Democrat President!), where all I am doing is fixing, cleaning, running, and ‘sprucing up’ a terribly maintained, for many years, Building, but a Building of potentially great importance. Yet, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a Radical Left Group of Lunatics whose funding was stopped by Congress in 2005, is not suing the Federal Reserve for a Building which has been decimated and destroyed, inside and out, by an incompetent and possibly corrupt Fed Chairman. The once magnificent Building is BILLIONS over budget, may never be completed, and may never open. All of the beautiful walls inside have been ripped down, never to be built again, but the National ‘Trust’ for Historic Preservation never did anything about it! Or, have they sued on Governor Gavin Newscum’s ‘RAILROAD TO NOWHERE’ in California that is BILLIONS over Budget and, probably, will never open or be used. So, the White House Ballroom, and The Trump Kennedy Center, which are under budget, ahead of schedule, and will be among the most magnificent Buildings of their kind anywhere in the World, gets sued by a group that was cut off by Government years ago, but all of the many DISASTERS in our Country are left alone to die. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? President DONALD J. TRUMP”
Hours later, he posted: “Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and I are working on fixing the absolutely filthy Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. This work was supposed to be done by the Biden Administration, but Sleepy Joe doesn’t know what ‘CLEAN’ or proper maintenance is—The President and Secretary do!”

Tonight Summer Said, David S. Cloud, and Michael Amon of the Wall Street Journal reported that the United Arab Emirates is trying to get a United Nations Security Council resolution to call for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE says it will help the U.S. and other allies open the strait by force.

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:08:05
From: Cymek
ID: 2375366
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

Neophyte said:


March 31, 2026 (Tuesday)

At 4:11 this morning, President Donald J. Trump’s social media account posted: “All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: Number 1, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, and Number 2, build up some delayed courage, to to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil! President DJT”

While this morning, Trump appeared to wash his hands of his Iran war, there was an undertone of panic in his post, especially coming as it did just before an exclusive story by Alexander Ward and Meridith McGraw in the Wall Street Journal reporting that Trump has “told aides he is willing to end the military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed.”

Economist Paul Krugman noted this evening that this is essentially an admission of defeat, and Suzanne Maloney, vice president of the Brookings Institution think tank and an expert on Iran, called Trump’s suggestion that he is willing to leave the strait closed “unbelievably irresponsible.” Having started a war, she said, the U.S. and Israel cannot walk away from the outcome. “Energy markets are inherently global, and there is no possibility of insulating the U.S. from the economic damage that is already occurring and will become exponentially worse if the closure of the strait continues,” she told the Wall Street Journal reporters.

Nonetheless, the idea the Iran War would end soon was a signal investors wanted to see. On the strength of the hope for a short war, the stock market posted its biggest one-day gain in ten months.

Meanwhile, another aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush, left its home port, Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, today to head in the direction of the Middle East, although it is not clear if it will support Operation Epic Fury. According to Alison Bath of Stars and Stripes, the carrier will pick up other elements of the carrier group, including the destroyers USS Ross, USS Donald Cook, and USS Mason, as it crosses the Atlantic. The George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group also includes several aircraft squadrons and detachments that make up the 70 or more aircraft in Carrier Air Wing 7, along with more than 5,000 sailors and military personnel.

Nearly 3,500 sailors and Marines from the Tripoli Amphibious Ready Group arrived in the region on Saturday.

Yesterday, host Laura Ingraham of the Fox News Channel wondered, “as the president fully briefed about the risks of all of this from the beginning? And was he then able to take it all in and understand the complexity of this? How complex it could actually get, and further possibilities of casualties or other damage—the difficulty of dealing with these people? Or was he told this would be relatively quick, in and out?”

Nick Hilden of AlterNet reported that MAGA leader Alex Jones speculated today that ill-health is contributing to Trump’s poor decisions on Iran. “Trump’s run off the edge of a cliff, and I don’t think he’s coming back from it,” Jones said. He urged MAGA to move on without Trump. “We cut bait on Trump and we mobilize against the Democrats,” he said. “Trump is just a minor figure.”

Hunter Walker of Talking Points Memo picked up the story of another MAGA figure distancing himself from Trump. When he ran for governor in 2024, former North Carolina lieutenant governor Mark Robinson flat out denied stories about his participation in pornography forums and social media chats where he attacked Jewish, Black, gay, and transgender people as well as flirting with Holocaust denial and calling himself a “black NAZI!” He even sued CNN for $50 million for defamation, calling their story about him “a high-tech lynching” before dropping the suit after losing the election.

Walker noted that Robinson recently admitted on a podcast that he was lying all along. He “had to ignore the truth at that moment,” he said, because he was shielding Trump. “I certainly don’t want to be the person that costs the president of the United States the election,” he said. “Didn’t want to cost anyone else their election.” Asked if he would do it again, he answered: “I’d make the exact same decision. I’d fight in the exact same way.”

After Saturday’s No Kings rallies around the country and the world, and after new polls showing his job approval ratings have dropped to new lows, Trump this afternoon signed an executive order attacking mail-in voting. Although both Democratic and Republican election officials insist mail-in voting is secure and reliable, Trump claims it permits Democrats to cheat.
Ironically, earlier this month the story broke of a right-wing activist in Wisconsin who ordered ballots in other people’s names to prove that mail-in voting enabled voter fraud. Last week Harry Wait was convicted of one felony count of identity theft and two misdemeanor counts of election fraud, suggesting mail-in voting is not as insecure as he thought.

Nonetheless, Trump is ordering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to work with the Social Security Administration to create a list of verified U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote in each state. The order directs the U.S. Postal Service to send mail-in ballots only to voters on the list, and to mark each ballot with its own unique barcode. It threatens any states refusing to cooperate with the order with a loss of federal funding and directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate anyone wrongfully distributing mail-in ballots. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council notes that “there is no such thing as a federal list of citizens. It does not exist.”

“This is unconstitutional on its face,” election law expert David Becker told Yunior Rivas of Democracy Docket. “The Constitution clearly gives the president no power over elections.” The Senate Rules Committee oversees federal involvement in elections, and its top Democrat, Alex Padilla (D-CA), called the order a “blatant, unconstitutional abuse of power,” adding that Trump has “no authority to commandeer federal elections or direct the Postal Service to undermine mail and absentee voting.” Representative Joe Morelle (D-NY), the top-ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, said that the order is “illegal, dangerous and subversive” and that “Donald Trump fears the American people and is willing to violate the Constitution to stop them from voting.”

“See you in court,” posted Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “You will lose.”

Another of Trump’s executive orders was in court today, when Judge Randolph Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that much of Trump’s order stripping NPR and PBS of funds was unconstitutional. As Brian Stelter of CNN reported, Moss quoted a Supreme Court ruling when he wrote: “The First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others.” Republicans in Congress have since voted to cut federal funding from NPR and PBS, but the decision is a victory for the First Amendment.

Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also stymied Trump today when he ruled that Trump cannot proceed with his plans for a giant ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing of the White House without approval from Congress. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued Trump and a number of federal agencies to stop construction of the ballroom, noting that Trump skipped reviews and approvals that were required by law.

The decision by Leon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, begins: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” It goes on to say that “no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims…to construct his East Wing ballroom project and do it with private funds,” and points out that Trump appears to be relying for authority on a law permitting him “to conduct ordinary maintenance and repair of the White House.” Leon also noted that the White House has offered vague and shifting information about who is actually in charge of the project and that the public has an interest in the appearance of the White House. Leon said “the ballroom construction project must stop until Congress authorizes its completion.”

The Department of Justice has already appealed.

Trump exploded at the judge’s decision, posting on social media: “The National Trust for Historic Preservation sues me for a Ballroom that is under budget, ahead of schedule, being built at no cost to the Taxpayer, and will be the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World. I then get sued by them over the renovation of the dilapidated and structurally unsound former Kennedy Center, now, The Trump Kennedy Center (A show of Bipartisan Unity, a Republican and Democrat President!), where all I am doing is fixing, cleaning, running, and ‘sprucing up’ a terribly maintained, for many years, Building, but a Building of potentially great importance. Yet, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, a Radical Left Group of Lunatics whose funding was stopped by Congress in 2005, is not suing the Federal Reserve for a Building which has been decimated and destroyed, inside and out, by an incompetent and possibly corrupt Fed Chairman. The once magnificent Building is BILLIONS over budget, may never be completed, and may never open. All of the beautiful walls inside have been ripped down, never to be built again, but the National ‘Trust’ for Historic Preservation never did anything about it! Or, have they sued on Governor Gavin Newscum’s ‘RAILROAD TO NOWHERE’ in California that is BILLIONS over Budget and, probably, will never open or be used. So, the White House Ballroom, and The Trump Kennedy Center, which are under budget, ahead of schedule, and will be among the most magnificent Buildings of their kind anywhere in the World, gets sued by a group that was cut off by Government years ago, but all of the many DISASTERS in our Country are left alone to die. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? President DONALD J. TRUMP”
Hours later, he posted: “Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and I are working on fixing the absolutely filthy Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. This work was supposed to be done by the Biden Administration, but Sleepy Joe doesn’t know what ‘CLEAN’ or proper maintenance is—The President and Secretary do!”

Tonight Summer Said, David S. Cloud, and Michael Amon of the Wall Street Journal reported that the United Arab Emirates is trying to get a United Nations Security Council resolution to call for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE says it will help the U.S. and other allies open the strait by force.

Shows weakness to China who could decide well even if the USA get involved with us taking Taiwan they don’t have the attention span for the long term.

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:09:35
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2375368
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

Cymek said:

Neophyte said:

March 31, 2026 (Tuesday)

Shows weakness to China who could decide well even if the USA get involved with us taking Taiwan they don’t have the attention span for the long term.

don’t know about all that but we’re still trying to work this one out

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:12:04
From: Cymek
ID: 2375370
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

Neophyte said:

March 31, 2026 (Tuesday)

Shows weakness to China who could decide well even if the USA get involved with us taking Taiwan they don’t have the attention span for the long term.

don’t know about all that but we’re still trying to work this one out


It does make you wonder if it was some senile decision without any forethought and now actual planning is required its all too hard.
He thought Iran would surrender in a few days and all their offensive weaponary gone.

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:13:43
From: roughbarked
ID: 2375375
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

Cymek said:


SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

Shows weakness to China who could decide well even if the USA get involved with us taking Taiwan they don’t have the attention span for the long term.

don’t know about all that but we’re still trying to work this one out


It does make you wonder if it was some senile decision without any forethought and now actual planning is required its all too hard.
He thought Iran would surrender in a few days and all their offensive weaponary gone.

For once he cannot make a deal. He’s run into people who aren’t yes men.

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:19:39
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2375380
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

don’t know about all that but we’re still trying to work this one out


It does make you wonder if it was some senile decision without any forethought and now actual planning is required its all too hard.
He thought Iran would surrender in a few days and all their offensive weaponary gone.

For once he cannot make a deal. He’s run into people who aren’t yes men.

maybe they’re going to try another Hirosaki or something

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:24:41
From: roughbarked
ID: 2375381
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Cymek said:

It does make you wonder if it was some senile decision without any forethought and now actual planning is required its all too hard.
He thought Iran would surrender in a few days and all their offensive weaponary gone.

For once he cannot make a deal. He’s run into people who aren’t yes men.

maybe they’re going to try another Hirosaki or something

That’s why he’s going to keep digging the nuclear bunker under the proposed ballroom.

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:26:06
From: roughbarked
ID: 2375382
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

roughbarked said:


SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

For once he cannot make a deal. He’s run into people who aren’t yes men.

maybe they’re going to try another Hirosaki or something

That’s why he’s going to keep digging the nuclear bunker under the proposed ballroom.

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:29:50
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2375383
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

maybe they’re going to try another Hirosaki or something

That’s why he’s going to keep digging the nuclear bunker under the proposed ballroom.


pretty sure these are law abiding leaders of international rules based law and order abiding countries

Reply Quote

Date: 1/04/2026 16:35:30
From: roughbarked
ID: 2375384
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

SCIENCE said:


roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

That’s why he’s going to keep digging the nuclear bunker under the proposed ballroom.


pretty sure these are law abiding leaders of international rules based law and order abiding countries

Pretty sure your tongue is always implanted firmly in cheek.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/04/2026 17:26:19
From: Neophyte
ID: 2375850
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

April 1, 2026 (Wednesday)

Today, for the first time in U.S. history, a sitting president attended oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court. President Donald J. Trump broke precedent to take a seat in the front row of the Supreme Court’s public seating area, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, to observe arguments in the case of Trump v. Barbara, a case under which Trump hopes to end the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The case argued before the court today grew out of Trump’s executive order of January 20, 2025, the day he took the oath of office a second time, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status.

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other partners, three families who represented the many people endangered by this order sued the administration. Barbara, for whom the case is named, is an applicant for asylum from Honduras whose baby was due after the order was set to go into effect.

Trump has called for ending birthright citizenship since his first term as part of his appeal to his racist supporters who want to end Black and Brown equality in the United States. But his argument would overturn the central idea of the United States articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that we are all created equal.

The Fourteenth Amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil War ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American South denied their Black neighbors basic rights. To remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing “hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right in every State and Territory in the United States.”

But President Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans, faced discriminatory state laws.

In contrast to the Democrats, Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were “opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.”

When Republicans tried to enshrine civil rights into federal law in 1866, Johnson objected that the proposed law “comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks,” as citizens, and noted that if “all persons who are native-born already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.” And if they weren’t already citizens, he wrote, Congress should not pass a law “to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States” when eleven southern states were not represented in Congress.

When Congress wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it took Johnson’s admonition to heart. It did not confer citizenship on the groups Johnson outlined; it simply acknowledged that the Constitution had already established their citizenship. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In the short term, Americans recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment established that Black men were citizens.

But the question of whether the amendment recognized birthright citizenship for all immigrants quickly became an issue in the American West, where white settlers were not terribly concerned about Black Americans—there were only 4,272 Black Americans in California in 1870, while there were almost half a million white Americans—but wanted no part of allowing Chinese men to be part of American society.

Western state legislatures continued to discriminate against Asian immigrants by falling back on the country’s early naturalization laws, finalized in 1802, to exclude first Chinese immigrants and then others from citizenship. Those laws were carefully designed to clarify that Afro-Caribbeans and Africans—imported to be enslaved—would not have the same rights as Euro-Americans. Those laws permitted only “free white persons” to become citizens.

In the late nineteenth century, state and territorial legal systems kept people of color at the margins, using treaties, military actions, and territorial and state laws that limited land ownership, suffrage, and intermarriage.

As late as 1922, in the case of Takao Ozawa v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Takao Ozawa, born in Japan, could not become a citizen under the 1906 Naturalization Act because that law had not overridden the 1790 naturalization law limiting citizenship to “free white persons.” The court decided that “white person” meant “persons of the Caucasian Race.” “A Japanese, born in Japan, being clearly not a Caucasian, cannot be made a citizen of the United States,” it said.

The next year, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind upheld the argument that only “free white persons” could become citizens. In that case, the court said that Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as Indo-European, could not become a U.S. citizen because he was not a “white person” under U.S. law, and only “free white persons” could become citizens. After the Thind decision, the United States stripped the citizenship of about fifty South Asian Americans who had already become American citizens.

Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.

But despite the longstanding use of laws designed to perpetuate human enslavement to prevent certain immigrants from becoming citizens, the Supreme Court always upheld the citizenship of their children. In 1882, during a period of racist hysteria, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act agreeing that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens.
Wong Kim Ark was born around 1873, the child of Chinese parents who were merchants in San Francisco. In 1889 he traveled with his parents when they repatriated to China, where he married. He then returned to the U.S., leaving his wife behind, and was readmitted. After another trip to China in 1894, though, customs officials denied him reentry to the U.S. in 1895, claiming he was a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese.

Wong sued, and his lawsuit was the first to climb all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to the government’s recognition that with the U.S. in the middle of an immigration boom, the question of birthright citizenship must be addressed. In the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court held by a vote of 6–2 that Wong was a citizen because he was born in the United States.

Immigration scholar Hidetaka Hirota of the University of California, Berkeley, explains that the government went even further to protect children born in the U.S. In 1889 the Treasury Department—which then oversaw immigration—decided that a native-born child could not be sent out of the country with her foreign-born mother. Nor did the government want to hurt the U.S. citizen by expelling her mother and leaving her without a guardian. So it admitted the foreign-born mother to take care of the citizen child.

The Treasury concluded that it was not “the intention of Congress to sever the sacred ties existing between parent and child, or forcibly banish and expatriate a native-born child for the reason that its parent is a pauper.”

In May 2023, then–presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released a video promising that on “Day One” of a new presidential term, he would issue an executive order that would end birthright citizenship. He claimed that the understanding that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen is “based on an historical myth, and a willful misinterpretation of the law by the open borders advocates.”

But one judge after another has sided against him on this issue, and he apparently showed up at the Supreme Court today to try to intimidate the three judges who owe their seats on the bench to him into supporting his own radical reworking of one of the key principles of our nation. He left after an hour and a half, before Cecillia Wang, the ACLU lawyer arguing for the plaintiffs, began to speak.

Later, Wang described what it was like to argue in court today. She explained, it’s “a nerve-wracking experience to argue any case in the Supreme Court, and especially one as weighty as this one, where the president of the United States is taking aim at a cherished American tradition and individual right of citizenship based on your birth in this country. I myself am a Fourteenth Amendment citizen because my parents had not yet naturalized when I was born. So I walked in today with the spirit of my parents and so many people’s ancestors in that first generation of Americans—whether they naturalized or not, I consider them all Americans. They came to this country with hopes and dreams, and they gave birth to future Americans, and that’s us.”

Reply Quote

Date: 2/04/2026 17:51:39
From: Michael V
ID: 2375858
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

Thanks for posting. As usual: interesting and thoughtful commentary.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/04/2026 18:04:34
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2375867
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

Neophyte said:

“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status.

Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.

they certainly saved it

who wouldn’t want to be a subject of and swear their allegiance to a fascist theocracy

Reply Quote

Date: 2/04/2026 18:06:58
From: roughbarked
ID: 2375868
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

SCIENCE said:

Neophyte said:

“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status.

Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.

they certainly saved it

who wouldn’t want to be a subject of and swear their allegiance to a fascist theocracy

Things have chabged somewhat since then.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/04/2026 18:10:07
From: Cymek
ID: 2375872
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

roughbarked said:


SCIENCE said:

Neophyte said:

“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status.

Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.

they certainly saved it

who wouldn’t want to be a subject of and swear their allegiance to a fascist theocracy

Things have chabged somewhat since then.

Over the top patriotism does achieve a fascism mentality.

Reply Quote

Date: 2/04/2026 18:11:55
From: SCIENCE
ID: 2375875
Subject: re: Heather Cox Richardson - April 2026

roughbarked said:


SCIENCE said:

Neophyte said:

“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status.

Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.

they certainly saved it

who wouldn’t want to be a subject of and swear their allegiance to a fascist theocracy

Things have chabged somewhat since then.

yes as they said it used to be the Republicans pushing for civil rights but pretty sure the undercurrents have been there the whole time

Reply Quote